MAT P383 कमाऊ पत्नी को No मेंटेनेंस

जहाां पत्नी हाईस्कूल में सहायक अध्यापपका के रूप में कायय कर रही थी, पजसे मापसक
वेतन 22358/ प्राप्त कर रही थी, वहाां पपत पर मासानमु ास भरण-पोषण भत्ता का
भुगतान करने के पलए भाररत करना न तो वैध और न ही न्यायोपित है। अतः, पपत को
पत्नी को मौपिक अनतु ोष के रूप में मासानमु ास भरण-पोषण भत्ता का भुगतान करने के
दापयत्व से मक्त
ु पकया गया था।
Form No. J (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side

Present :
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SANKAR ACHARYYA
C.R.R. No. 1700 of 2014
In the matter of :
Biswajit Murmu & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioners : Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu; adv.

Mr. Biswajit Hazra; adv.
Mr. Debapriya Samanta; adv.

For the Opposite : Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh; adv

Party No. 2 Mr. Pritam Chowdhury; adv.

Heard on : 23.06.2015, 01.07.2015

Judgment on : 29.07.2015
SANKAR ACHARYYA, J.
This revisional application under Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 482 of that Code has
been filed by two petitioners Biswajit Murmu and Ava Murmu, the
son and mother respectively as petitioners against the State of West
Bengal and Smt. Moumita Murmu as opposite parties challenging the
judgment and order dated 11.04.2014 passed by learned District and
Sessions Judge, Suri, District Birbhum in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of
2013. Contending inter alia, the petitioners have contended that the
impugned judgment has caused abuse of process of Court due to
non-application of judicial mind for passing the impugned judgment
and is bad in law, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
By the said judgment learned District and Sessions Judge, Suri
has partly affirmed by modification of a judgment dated 28th March,
2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Suri District
Birbhum in C. Case No. 438 of 2009 under Sections 9 (b) and 37 (2)
(C) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Said case was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Birbhum at Suri.
In the judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Birbhum at Suri the present petitioner No. 1 as Opposite Party in
that case was directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.6000/-
per month to his wife petitioner Moumita Murmu (Mondal) (Opposite
Party No. 2 herein) and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to ;her
in two equal instalments and to return Stridhan articles of the
Opposite Party No. 2 of this case as per list or to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to
her and also to arrange rented accommodation for her within Bolpur
city and to pay house rent, electricity charges thereof as per tenancy
agreement. Protection order was also passed in favour of the wife
Opposite Party No. 2 against the present petitioner exercising power
of learned Magistrate under the provisions of The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Said judgment was challenged by the present petitioner before
the learned Sessions Judge filing Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2013. In
the impugned judgment learned Sessions Judge has modified the
judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum at
Suri. Residence order and order for return of Stridhan articles or to
pay Rs.3,00.000/- have been set aside, order of monetary relief for
payment of maintenance allowance has been modified reducing the
amount from Rs.6000/- per month to Rs.4000/-per month and the
order for payment of compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in two
equal monthly instalments has been affirmed.
Petitioners have filed this case under Section 401 read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the
judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Suri.
Said judgment has not been challenged by the wife Opposite
Party No. 2.
Contending inter alia in the revisional application the petitioners
contended that the impugned judgment is bad in law and tantamount
to abuse of the process of Court and it is liable to be set aside. Filing
supplementary affidavit the petitioners have stated about some new
facts regarding service of the Opposite Party No. 2 as a part-time
teacher in Nabagram Amar Chand Kundu College between 27.8,2009
to 31.10.2013. they have also stated about working of the Opposite
Party No. 2 as an Assistant teacher in Jay Krishnapur Junior High
School for girls and have alleged her monthly gross salary is
Rs.22,358/- which facts were suppressed in the Courts below.
Scope of determination in this case is ordinarily confined within
legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment. It is
not proper for this Court to entertain new facts which were not under
consideration in the impugned judgment.
 Since the matter of setting aside of residence order and return of
Stridhan articles is not under challenge, I do not like to enter into
discussion on such matters.
In the judgement passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Birbhum at Suri has passed order for payment of compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- by petitioner No. 1 herein to Opposite Party No. 2 of
this case. Said order has been fortified by assigning reasons and it is
permissible under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Said portion of the judgment has been
affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Suri. I do not find
anything against legality, propriety and correctness in the said
concurrent observations of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and
learned Sessions Judge in the judgments of the learned Trial Court
and Appellate Court.
Relating to monetary relief in the form of monthly maintenance
allowance I find necessity of interference by this Court in order to
prevent abuse of process of Court. It appears from the impugned
judgment that at the time of passing the judgment on 11.04.2014 it
was well within the knowledge of learned Sessions Judge that in
December, 2013 the Opposite Party No. 2 (wife of petitioner No. 1) has
joined as Assistant teacher in a school through School Service
Commissioner’s examination. It is also undisputed fact that the
petitioner No. 1 is also Assistant teacher of a school and his mother
being a woman is his dependant. As such, in my view, burdening the
petitioner No. 1 to pay maintenance allowance for any amount month
by month to Opposite Party No. 2 since after November, 2013 is
neither legal nor just. Rather, it is an abuse of process of Court.
Thus, for the ends of justice, I do not uphold the finding of payment
of monthly maintenance allowance by petitioner No. 1 to Opposite
Party No. 2 with effect from December, 2013. Accordingly, the
impugned judgment requires modification.
Finally, this revisional application is allowed in part. The
petitioner No. 1 is exempted from any liability to pay maintenance
allowance as monetary relief to Opposite Party No. 2 with effect from
December, 2013. The amount already paid for any period since
December, 2013 by him, if any, be adjusted with the amount of
entitlement of Opposite Party No. 2 on account of compensation and
arrear maintenance allowance before December, 2013 under the
provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005. In respect of other findings, excepting the above aspect of
liability for payment of monthly maintenance allowance, made in the
impugned judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum at
Suri in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2013 are left without interference.
Consequently, the impugned judgment is modified.
A copy of this judgment under signature of Assistant Registrar
be sent to learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Suri and to learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum at Suri for information and
necessary action.
Urgent certified copy, if applied for, be supplied promptly to the
parties, following all legal formalities.

(SANKAR ACHARYYA, J.)